Tonight, a new episode of HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER.
The bad news?
As noted at the end, there are only two more episodes left for the season.
This episode?
Tegan? A friend or foe? Annalise and the gang don't know if Tegan can be trusted and they know she's an FBI informant. Michala comes up with an idea to ensure that Tegan doesn't trust the FBI. They send her an anonymous e-mail telling her they know she's Jane Doe.
That does make her doubt the FBI.
It also alerts IT who then rush to tell Timothy Hutton about it. So now he knows that she's the one who sold the law firm (and Laurel's father) out to the feds.
He tries to get Annalise's opinion on Tegan. She vouches for her. This only makes him suspicious and he contacts IT and tells them he's going to need them to look at the e-mails of another employee.
Annalise tells Tegan she vouched for her and Tegan shows her a webpage announcing Miller's body has been found.
That's Bonnie's doing. The longer it stayed missing, the better it was. But Miller's mom was talking to Bonnie and Bonnie couldn't stand letting the woman hope in vain that her son would come back alive.
Pretty Boy was saved by Annalise and the gang. The feds charged him as a terrorist.
Bail was set at a million. They weren't sure how to fight it but Laurel was the smart one. When they couldn't find anything from the past, she thought to look at the camera footage from the camera Frank planted in Gabriel's apartment. It showed the FBI search and the FBI planting evidence under the mattress. Annalise showed it in court and the feds dropped the charges.
Gabriel was then roped in to help go after the governor. He lied to the FBI that Miller spoke to someone named "Lynn" -- he didn't know who. Lynn is the governor, of course.
Thursday, February 7, 2019. The media can't stop selling war.
From CBS' THIS MORNING earlier today.
There is so much wrong with the above, see Seymour Hersh's LONDON REVIEW
OF BOOKS reporting for the bulk of what CBS got wrong, but grasp how
Norah O'Donnell rushes in to insist the military (US) is doing a great
job but not to insist that they come home. That must never be said,
apparently. Which goes a long way towards explaining how we have
endless wars. She wants to prove she's pro-military by applauding their
work, she just isn't pro-military enough to support them coming home.
"We are the cops of the world," Phil Ochs famously sang and the reason
that registered in the sixties and the reason it registers today is
because the American people don't support this nonsense and never have.
Helping a country is not sending Americans to fight for years and
years. And it is not something that Americans support.
Which is why these eternal wars are marketed and sold on lies. Which is
why killers like Samantha Power take self-righteous stands and poses as
helpers when they are anything but ("the cruise missile left," these
killers are called)..
Norah O'Donnell does not support the military in the least, not as an
anchor of CBS THIS MORNING. She's poses and preens. She's the
mid-level supervisor who pretends to listen to a complaint but does
nothing and has just been dispatched to shut you up. "Oh, that's so
awful that you're sick from overwork. Well you're doing a great job!"
She's heartless and just there to stand between you and the people above
her. She's the buffer and she's very well to be.
Again, if she truly cared about the US military, she'd be calling for them to come home.
Norah would probably try to pretend -- like she did when she was doing
all those attack pieces on John Kerry back in the day -- that she's just
'reporting.'
That's not true.
There is nothing in the clip above about 'reporting.' It is advocacy
journalism and the only point of view they are advocating is continued
war. Do not pretend otherwise and do not accept the lie that this was
balanced and fair journalism.
Thank you to @charliecbs who is in Syria reporting from the last piece of ISIS-controlled land. This as President Trump predicts ISIS will soon have lost all its territory in Iraq and Syria
1:35
1,734 views
She apparently is unaware that the Pentagon has maintained that ISIS
still has small areas under their control in Iraq. Poor Norah.
She's always caught unaware -- like when she was sitting at the desk for
years with Charlie Rose but somehow unaware that he was harassing
women. For a journalist, Norah doesn't seem to notice much does she?
US President Donald Trump's remarks earlier this week about using
al-Asad base in Iraq to spy on Iran continues to make the news. ALJAZEERA reports:
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani said Iraq aspires to
have "good and balanced relations" with all of its neighbours "based on
mutual interests and without intervention in internal affairs".
Iraq "rejects being a launching pad for harming any
other country", he said during a meeting with UN Iraq envoy Jeanine
Hennis-Plasschaert at the Muslim leader's base in Najaf.
AP also notes al-Sistani's remarks.
It's interesting, isn't it, how the supposed mainstream press is noting
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani on this issue when the ignored his
repeated remarks about the Iraqi government accepting foreign loans,
ignored his opposition to Iraq accepting IMF loans and his warnings
about how this would limit Iraq's independence.
But on this, they rush to quote him. Some times, apparently, al-Sistani
is a newsmaker worth listening to and, some times, he is not.
ALJAZEERA also notes the supposed leader of Iraq: Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, at his weekly news conference late
Tuesday, reminded Trump there are no US bases in Iraq and said he does
not accept the idea of his country becoming an arena for fighting a
neighbouring country. He called on Trump to retract his statements.
Despite traveling with press on Sunday and Monday, Mahdi refused to make any statement on the matter until "late Tuesday."
This allowed the press to rally around the president of Iraq and present
the world with the misinterpretation that the presidency was the
highest office in Iraq. (It's not.)
Donald's Sunday remarks have resulted in days of Iraq coverage -- the
kind of coverage not even seen when the Iraq War hit the fifteen year
mark. (It hits the sixteen year mark this March.)
The U.S. and Iraq opened talks Wednesday on a new agreement to allow U.S. forces to remain in the country, just days after Mr. Trump angered top officials in Baghdad by outlining plans to keep a military footprint in Iraq indefinitely to “watch” neighboring Iran and prevent a resurgence of terror groups such as Islamic State.
The negotiations come amid the meeting this week of
the U.S.-organized “Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State,” the
79-nation consortium spearheading the fight against the Islamic State.
Mahdi has still been unable to find a Minister of Defense or Minister of
Interior. Four months (so far) those posts have been empty.
Why are US forces staying in Iraq? If their own government can't fill
the post of Minister of Defense at a time when they are 'at war,' why do
US forces need to waste their time on the ground in Iraq?
Informed sources reveals a corruption deal valued at $ 19.5 million
concluded by the "Oil Ministry" with the company "ALTA" to buy the
machines of examining trucks with a double cost ; after the approval of
the Economic Committee of the Council of Ministers to contract with this
company directly and exclude it from the conditions of the
Implementation of the government contracts.
The US-led global coalition against Islamic State has warned that the terror group is not yet defeated in Iraq and Syria, and is exporting hardened fighters to new battlefields around the world
Terrorism is a crime and has to be fought as such. It is not a 'war.'
In non-Broadway or film news, THE SIMPSONS just got renewed for 2 more seasons (31st and 32nd). That show has been on my whole life. Honestly, there are probably only 3 or 4 good episodes a season these days. I think they'd do a great job if they'd do a Ralph episode or do some Marge episodes. I think a lot of time they're traveling over the same terrain they've been down repeatedly but with less and less humor.
For me, seasons 12, 13, 14 and 15 were the best. And, yes, I have all the seasons (except the current one) on DVD.
And right now I'm on NETFLIX watching ANT MAN & THE WASP which came to NETFLIX I don't know when. I was just looking for something to watch and saw it had been added.
Wednesday, February 6, 2019. Donald Trump gave a speech last night, we
ignore it to offer media critiques (including imploring lefty men to
stop screaming into cameras and thinking that's what lefty women want)
and to translate Donald Trump to English on the Iraq base issue.
US President Donald Trump delivered the State of the Union speech last
night. Ahead of the speech, a CBS NEWS poll showed that the most
pressing topic on the mind of Americans was foreign policy and national
security. Respondents ranked that the number one issue (93%) with jobs
and economy second (92%) and healthcare third (80%).
If you stream the CBS NEWS video above, you'll learn about the poll.
You'll also learn that anyone can say anything on TV with no
accountability such as this line, "Well President Trump has used his
claim that ISIS is defeated to pull US troops out of Iraq and Syria."
When?
When did he ever make that claim?
I'd love to hear him make that claim. But he hasn't. Afghanistan and
Syria are what he's talked about. How do you get to anchor a segment on
Iraq and not have your basic facts rights?
Better question, do the words "Quiet on the set" mean nothing? While
"the global war against ISIS" is being discussed, why are we hearing
loud laughter throughout the segment? Does no one know how to shut
their mouths?
Third, if you want to tip your news segment towards war you invite who? A
Center for a New American Security member. This one is the greasy
faced Nicholas Heras. Maybe some of the gigglers could have fetched
Heras an alcohol wipe or some powder?
CNAS is not just a hot bed of neocons, it's also where the failed
counterinsurgency strategy was re-birthed. It's amazing how they've
walked away from that failure. They don't mention it anymore. Maybe
because, if they did, their 'expert' qualifications would be called into
question.
I'd love to say the left was doing a better job than CBS NEWS; however, I actually watched the RING OF FIRE video below.
I feel like Meg Ryan in SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE explain to Rosie O'Donnell the 'code' the little girl uses in her forged notes.
First off, Donald Trump did not say on CBS' FACE THE NATION that they would be used to launch attacks -- the US troops he wants to keep on the base in Iraq. What does he want?
He wants them to obtain intelligence. He wants them to be on the
ground. He has more respect for military intelligence than for civilian
intelligence. And I'm already doing Trump to English don't make me now
educate you on military intelligence as well. (They predate the CIA
and their abuses have been as outrageous as the CIA's abuses -- if not
more so. They spy overseas and they spy in the US.) I'm not saying
Trump respect military chiefs, I am saying he respects intel obtained by
the military more than he does the intel obtained by the CIA. There
are numerous reasons for that and you can explore that on your own,
we're not going to get lost in the weeds here.
Repeating, he wants them there for intel.
He made that rather clear and Margaret Brennan then attempted to spin it
or fill in the blanks or put words in his mouth. Let's go back to what
he said to CBS on Sunday.
PRESIDENT
DONALD TRUMP: --but when it was chosen-- well, we spent a fortune on
building this incredible base. We might as well keep it. And one of the
reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit
at Iran because Iran is a real problem. MARGARET BRENNAN: Whoa, that's news. You're keeping troops in Iraq because you want to be able to strike in Iran? PRESIDENT
DONALD TRUMP: No, because I want to be able to watch Iran. All I want
to do is be able to watch. We have an unbelievable and expensive
military base built in Iraq. It's perfectly situated for looking at all
over different parts of the troubled Middle East rather than pulling up.
And this is what a lot of people don't understand. We're going to keep
watching and we're going to keep seeing and if there's trouble, if
somebody is looking to do nuclear weapons or other things, we're going
to know it before they do. MARGARET BRENNAN: So you're going to trust the intelligence that you receive? PRESIDENT
DONALD TRUMP: I am going to trust the intelligence that I'm putting
there, but I will say this: my intelligence people, if they said in fact
that Iran is a wonderful kindergarten, I disagree with them 100
percent. It is a vicious country that kills many people.
This entire thing has been distorted. What he said and what he intends has been distorted.
Now people may say, "Well under that scenario it is highly likely that
US troops would be used to strike Iran." Yes, I believe that too.
But that's not what Donald said and probably not what he thinks.
If we're talking about what he's saying and what his plan is, we don't need to lie.
He's very clear on what it's for: Spying. He's very clear that it will
be military intelligence ("I am going to trust the intelligence that I'm
putting here").
If he does this, there is a possible outcome that is not what he's saying or factoring in.
We can, and maybe should, argue that he is not thinking things through,
considering all outcomes, etc. But it is dishonest to say that he's
planning to have US troops strike Iran from Iraq.
It's dishonest and you're giving him a lot more credit for planning than he probably deserves.
Donald is also a greedy person and a bit of a tightwad -- again, I
disliked Donald long before he became president and, unlike so many
others, I didn't flatter him. But he's greedy. Money is his god.
And if you don't grasp that, you don't grasp that he's criticizing
Barack when he speaks, as he did on Sunday to CBS, about the base in
Anbar Province that the US has.
Dropping back to the June 29, 2012 snapshot
for the previous day's House Oversight and Government Reform's
Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations hearing: Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: I just have one more question so we'll just do a quick
second round of questions. Ambassador Kennedy, you mentioned the Baghdad police
college annex facility as one of the facilities. It's my
understanding that the United States' taxpayers have invested more than
$100 million in improvements on that site. It was intended to house the
police department program -- a multi-billion dollar effort that's
currently being downsized. And as a result of the State Dept's
failure to secure land use rights the entire facility is being turned
over to the Iraqis at no cost. The GAO reports
Mission Iraq has land use agreements or leases for only 5 out of all
of the sites that it operates. Can you say with confidence that those
sites now operating without leases or agreements will not be turned over
to Iraq for free as was the case with the police development program?
And what would the cost to the US taxpayer be if they were to
lose without compensation all of those facilities?
Patrick Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, the statement that has been --
that you were reading from about we are closing the Baghdad police
development center because of a failure to have land use rights is
simply factually incorrect. We have a land
use agreement for that site. As part of the program -- the police
development program -- there are periodic reviews that are underway and
my colleagues who do that -- it's not
part of my general responsibility on the operating side of the house -- engage in reviews
on a six month basis both internally and with the government of Iraq. It was always our
plan to make adjustments to the police development program over time. But the
statement that somehow we have wasted or had everything pulled out
from under us because of lack of a land use agreement is very simply
false. For our other properties
in Iraq we have -- we have agreements for every single property we have in Iraq except
for one which is our interim facility in -- in Basra which is simply a reincarnation of a
former US military there. But even in that regard we have a longterm agreement that
was signed with the government of Iraq by Ambassador Negroponte in 2005 in which
we swapped properties with the government of Iraq and they are committed to provide
us with a ten acre facility in-in Basra of our mutal choosing. And so we are covered, sir.
He said it. Too bad it wasn't accurate or, for that matter, truthful. We'll jump over to the second panel.
Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Mr. Courts, Ambassador Kennedy and I got into a
discussion about the absence of or presence of land use agreements for the facilities
we have in Iraq do you have the current status for that information from your latest
eport as to what facilities we do and do not have land use agreements for?
Michael Courts: What Ambassador Kennedy may have been referring to that for 13 of
the 14 facilities the Iraqis have acknowledged a presence through diplomatic notes.
But there's still only 5 of the 14 for which we actually have explicit title land use
agreements or leases.
Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Alright so I'm not -- I'm not a diplomat. So what does
that mean? They say, "Oh, you can use it until we change our minds" -- is that
basically what those are? Or is there some force of law to those notes?
Michael Courts: Well the notes are definitely not the same thing as
having an explicit agreement. And as a matter of fact, there's already
been one case where the Iraqis
required us to reconfigure, downsize one of our sites. And that was at one of the
sites where we did not have a land use agreement and so obviously we're in a much
more vulnerable position when there's not an explicit agreement.
Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Alright, Mr. Carroll, I would also like to follow up a
question I had on the last panel about the use of Iraqi nationals in overseeing some
of our investigations of it -- does that? I mean, what's your opinion that? Does that
strike you as a good idea, a bad idea or something we're stuck with because there's
no alternative? It seems like Americans would be a little more concerned about how
their tax dollars were spent than the Iraqi nationals who are the receipients of those
tax dollars. That's kind of a fox guarding the hen house, it looks like.
Michael Carroll: [Laughing] Well I-I personally I think it's a - like-like Ms. Rudman said
it's an additive sort of step. We would do the same thing. For example, in some of the
places where it's absolutely prohibited because of security what we will do is contract
with a local CPA firm -- primarily out of Egypt -- and do a very comprehensive agreed
upon procedures document that they will go out and they will take pictures, they will
ask questions, they will do what we would do if we could get there. So I think that it
what Mara is talking about as well. I don't see it as a problem. In fact, I see it as an
adjunct to and it's not a replacement for USAID contracting
representatives and technical representatives actually getting out and
ensuring that the work is actually being done.
That's not what these people are doing. What these people are doing is just going out,
doing some monitoring and observing. But it does not replace what the
responsibilities are for the Americans.
Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Alright. Thank you very much. And I'm not sure if I
want to address this to Mr. Courts or Mr. Bowen -- whichever one of you seems
most eager to answer can take this. I haven't been to Iraq. My information in the
field of what it's like on the ground there is based on the things that I've read and
the reports that I've seen on television. But a good many of our facilities are in
metropolitan areas including the capital Baghdad and I'm concerned that we are
struggling getting food and water to these folks in a safe manner. I mean, what's
the procedure? Is the food delivered? How -- how is that handled and why is it a
problem in a metropolitan area? There are hundreds of thousands of people in
these cities, Iraqi nationals, that need to be fed. Obviously, it's more complicated
than just going down to the Safeway but I mean how is that handled? And why is it
such a problem?
Stuart Bowen: The State Dept, as Ambassador Kennedy indicated,
continued the LOGCAP contract after the military withdrew in December
and thus the process for bringing food
into the country continued as well and that is via convoys that come up from Kuwait.
There have been challenges. That checkpoint has been occasionally closed. There
have been security challenges with regards to those convoys and other reasons that
the shipments have been intermittent and has led to an occasional shortage of certain
food stuff at the embassies. [Former US] Ambassador [to Iraq James]
Jeffrey emphasized repeatedly this spring his desire to move towards
local purchase but that's been slow.
Is it wrong to note that the State Dept's Patrick Kelly was not honest with the Subcommittee or
that he chose to ignore the questions asked? He wanted to insist (falsely) that there were leases
on all the Iraqi property currently occupied by the US diplomatic mission. Again, that is not truthful.
In addition, he wanted to insist that turning over a facility the US taxpayer had spent over a million
dollars on was normal and natural. It was neither. US taxpayers, if asked, might have said, "Hey,
turn it over to an Iraqi orphanage or youth project."
Or, noting the huge amount of widows due to the war, might have said,
"Turn it over as a facility for women and their children to live in."
But the same taxpayer that had no vote in whether or not to go to war
got no vote in how to spend millions in Iraq..
Patrick Kennedy declared, "It was always our plan to make adjustments to the police development program over time."
That actually may be true. (Or it may be another lie.) But the fact
is, the US State Dept refused to share the plan with Congress or the
office of the
Special Inspector for General Reconstruction in Iraq. Kennedy might
hope we forget that -- and certainly many in the press will rush to
assist him -- but those of us present at the hearings held in the last
months of 2011 remember the State Dept refusing to answer questions.
When the US State Dept was tasked with the Iraq mission by Barack Obama
(fall of 2011 -- and tasked because of the military drawdown which would
push the mission over to State from Defense), millions of dollars were
spent building various things -- buildings that were never used or used
only briefly. And these costly buildings were then just handed over to
the Iraqi government. Land lease agreements are a basic. The State
Dept showed no oversight or forethought. That's not surprising. From
the start, they refused to answer Congress on what they would be doing.
They refused to explain how the money would be spent. They stalled or
lied over and over. During this time, US House Rep Gary Ackerman made
many important comments. We'll drop back to a hearing covered in the December 1, 2011 snapshot:
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: He [Bowen] has testified before
other bodies of Congress, he has released written quarterly reports, as
well as specific audits and the message is the same: The program for
which the Department of State officially took responsibility on October
1st is nearly a text book case of government procurement -- in this
case, foreign assistance -- doesn't buy what we think we're paying for,
what we want and why more money will only make the problem worse.
Failed procurement is not a problem unique to the State Department. And
when it comes to frittering away millions, Foggy Bottom is a rank
amateur compared to the Department of Defense. As our colleagues on the
Armed Services committees have learned, the best of projects with the
most desirable of purposes can go horribly, horribly off-track; and the
hardest thing it seems that any bureaucracy can do is pull the plug on a
failed initiative. How do we know the Police Development Program is
going off-track? Very simple things demonstrate a strong likelihood of
waste and mismanagement. Number one, does the government of Iraq --
whose personnel we intend to train -- support the program? Interviews
with senior Iraqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter
disdain for the program. When the Iraqis suggest that we take our money
and do things instead that are good for the United States, I think that
might be a clue.
[. . .]
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: When will they be willing to stand up without us?
Brooke Darby: I wish I could answer that question.
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?
[long pause]
Ranking
Member Gary Ackerman: You know, this is turning into what happens after
a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. It's called "a Jewish goodbye."
Everybody keeps saying goodbye but nobody leaves.
Another Democrat worth noting would be US House Rep Gerry Connolly:
US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Madame Deputy
Assistant Secretary, welcome. Is it your testimony here today that the
State Dept is fully committed to transparency and accountability with
respect to any and all programs it has oversight and responsibility for
in Iraq?
Brooke
Darby: We take our responsibility for accountability and cooperation
with all of the audit entities, with Congress very, very seriously.
US
House Rep Gerald Connolly: No, ma'am, that was not my question. Is it
your testimony that you're fully committed to transparency and
accountability with respect to those responsibilities?
Brooke Darby: We are absolutely committed to accountability.
US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Full accountability? Full transparency and accountability?
Brooke Darby: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure how you define that so . . .
US
House Rep Gerald Connolly: Well I guess I'm not sure why you avoid the
word. That was my question and you've ducked it three times. Are we
or are we not, is the State Dept committed to full transparency and
accountability to the tax payers in the United States and the people who
served in Iraq or not?
Brooke
Darby: We absolutely are accountable to the tax payers, to our
Congress and to all of the oversight bodies who are looking into how we
are spending our dollars, whether our programs are achieving success.
We are absolutely --
US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Alright. I'll sort of take that as a commitment.
The State Dept did a lousy job and they were not transparent and
millions of US tax dollars were wasted on various buildings that were
then turned over to the Iraqi government shortly after they were built
because their intended use was not practical or needed.
Sunday, Donald Trump said "well, we spent a fortune on
building this incredible base. We might as well keep it." He's
referring to the waste and wasted money that took place previously.
If this is news to you, take it up with a lazy American media that never
held Barack Obama or his administration accountable for anything.
If a State Dept employee went before Congress tomorrow and danced around
transparency the way Brooke Darby did in 2011, it would be outrage on
Twitter and news on the cable chat and chews for days and days.
The RING OF FIRE clip is dishonest.
Especially when Farron Cousins starts shouting about "how dumb can you
get" regarding announcing the spying? There's nothing at all stupid
about that. If you believe Iran is in non-compliance -- Donald does, I
have no opinion one way or the other -- then announcing the spying is
putting Iran on notice -- 'We are watching.' And that's not stupid.
Yell all you want, Farron Cousins, it doesn't endear you to me. It only
makes me fear for people who may live in your home, fear for their
safety around such a rage prone hot-head.
For anyone in Cousins orbit who may need it, the National Domestic Abuse hotline is 1-800-799-7233.
Some conservative women like that yelling. It's why they listen to Rush
Limbaugh. Non-conservative women do not tend to love watching men yell
and scream. We've been yelled and screamed at enough and we're fully
aware that RING OF FIRE is an outlet for men and not women so that
yelling and screaming is also a way to talk over us. In addition, that
kind of yelling and screaming will lead many of us to stop listening to a
program because in the real world that kind of yelling and screaming is
usually followed by physical abuse. It's not a cute act and RING OF
FIRE would do well to stop trying to market it as a way to communicate.
The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan, ANTIWAR.COM and the Center for Constitutional Rights -- updated:
